That covers some types of "bad press," but consider this scenario: A diaper company pays for a set of billboard advertisements along a highway that has no history of negative events (low accident rate, etc.). Somebody driving along that highway goes on a road rage rampage, shooting other drivers, killing several and wounding more. A photographer captures this in a way that makes it impossible to crop out the diaper billboard and retain proper framing, and publishes the photo, which gets picked up and is published in all the major newspapers, appears on TV, etc. The diaper company then objects, since their brand is now affiliated with this mass murder. It really isn't their fault that somebody went on a killing spree in front of their billboard, and of course the lack of history of accidents and killing sprees in this area means that they had no reason to avoid putting their ad up in that space. Their product has nothing to do with guns, violence, or cars. In some sense, the diaper company is another victim of this event.
Originally Posted by SchwinnParamount
Note that I'm not saying the diaper company should have a legal basis for suing the photographer or anybody who publishes the photo; IMHO, the possibility of such "collateral damage" does not warrant muzzling freedom of expression. What I am saying is that unintentional damage to uninvolved third parties is possible whenever photos (or video footage or audio recordings) of newsworthy events are distributed. The possibility of such damage is real and should be acknowledged -- it's just not justification for censorship, IMHO. Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be to blur out the details on the billboard, but I'd be reluctant to require such actions. Consider if, instead of a diaper ad, the billboard had an ad for the NRA. Publishing such a photo then becomes, at least potentially, political speech. Whether or not you agree with the statement in this hypothetical photo, it'd be a powerful image and very important, from a freedom of speech perspective.